Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.           The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that on 09.06.2021, the complainant used the PNB ATM, near Bus Stand, Moga for debit of the amount. It is submitted that the complainant debited Rs.5000/- two times, but first time ATM machine failed to disburse and second time the amount was disbursed by the machine. Complainant raised the query qua above to the concerned Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India. On 13.05.2022, the complainant received the mail from Opposite Party No.2 i.e. State Bank of India vide which they advised the complainant to lodge complaint with Punjab National Bank. On 26.05.2022, the complainant received the mail from Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank, vide which they advised the complainant to lodge the complaint with State Bank of India. After that the complainant raised online query to RBI. But on 12.08.2022 complainant received an email from RBI, vide which, they closed the complaint of the complainant being not maintainable. Due to the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties complainant suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- which was not disbursed from the ATM alongwith interest.

b)      And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Party no.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is legally not sustainable in the present form as there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Opposite Party. The complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint against the answering Opposite Party; the present complaint is time barred as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. As per the guidelines and instructions of the Reserve Bank of India, if any mistake occurs in the account, the account holder is bound to lodge the complaint with concerned bank with whom the party is maintaining the account, within 30 days in writing and if the bank does not consider the complaint of the complainant, then the complainant has a right to approach the Banking Ombudsman. In the present case, the complainant is admittedly maintained the account with Opposite Party No.2-State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Moga and only ATM of the answering Opposite Party No.1 was used. Averred that the complainant has never informed within the prescribed period to her banker nor lodged any complaint with anyone upto the month of May, 2022. So, in light of this fact, the complainant is estopped with her own act and conduct. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party and the complaint against the answering Opposite Party is legally not sustainable. The CCTV Camera date only remains available for 30 days and thereafter, said data is automatically closed. On this score also, the complaint lodged by the complainant before this Commission is time barred and is liable to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 filed written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable against Opposite Party No.2. This Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering Opposite Party. The complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission. Actual facts are that complainant is holder of saving account no.30877005576 with Opposite Party No.2. On 09.06.2021 a sum of Rs.5,000/- (two times) has been withdrawn by the complainant through ATM of Opposite Party No.1. The complainant lodged a complaint on 16.03.2022 regarding the failing of one transaction of Rs.5000/- on 09.06.2021. The answering Opposite Party lodged the complaint of complainant online portal on 16.03.2022 and they reply that the time limit for raising the claim has expired, so please take up matter with ATM Branch. The answering Opposite Party mailed the complaint of the complainant to Opposite Party No.1 on 06.05.2022, 13.05.2022 and 08.08.2022 regarding the complaint of the complainant, but the matter is still pending with Opposite Party No.1. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Opposite Party. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

4.       In order to prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7.

5.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Ikwant Singh, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank  Ex.OP1/1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP1/2 & OP1/3. On the other hand, Sh.Arjun Singh, Branch Manager of Opposite Party No.2 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OPs2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2/2 to Ex.OPs2/8.

6.       We have heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and also gone through the documents placed on record.

7.       The case of the complainant is that on 09.06.2021 she used the PNB ATM, near Bus Stand, Moga for the debit of amount of Rs.5000/-. Submitted that the complainant had to use the card two times, as first time ATM machine failed to disburse the amount, but the amount was debited from her account and second time the amount was disbursed by the machine. Complainant raised the complaint with Opposite Parties i.e. Punjab National Bank as well as State Bank of India. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint with Banking Ombudsman, but it closed the complaint of the complainant being not maintainable. Claiming deficiency in service complainant has filed the present complaint seeking refund of her hard earned money of Rs.5000/-.

8.       On this, defence of the Opposite Party No.1 is that as per the guidelines and instructions of the Reserve Bank of India, if any mistake occurs in the account, the account holder is bound to lodge the complaint with concerned bank with whom he/she maintained the account, within 30 days in writing and if the bank does not consider the complaint of the complainant, then the complainant has a right to approach the Banking Ombudsman. But the complainant failed to do so. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.

9.       Whereas, defence of Opposite Party No.2 is that on 09.06.2021 a sum of Rs.5,000/- (two times) has been withdrawn by the complainant through ATM of Opposite Party No.1. The complainant lodged a complaint on 16.03.2022 regarding the failing of one transaction of Rs.5000/- of dated 09.06.2021. Opposite Party No.2 lodged the complaint of complainant online portal on 16.03.2022 and they reply that the time limit for raising the claim has expired, so please take up matter with ATM Branch. Then Opposite Party No.2 mailed the complaint of the complainant to Opposite Party No.1 on different dates i.e. on 06.05.2022, 13.05.2022 and 08.08.2022 regarding the complaint of the complainant, but the matter is still pending with Opposite Party No.1.

10.     We have considered the rival contentions of ld. counsel for the parties as well of the complainant in person and carefully gone through the record. It is proved on record that on 09.06.2021 a sum of Rs.5,000/- (two times) has been withdrawn by the complainant from the ATM of Opposite Party No.1, first time ATM machine failed to disburse the amount, but the amount was deducted from the account of the complainant and second time the amount was disbursed by the machine. It is also proved on record that complainant lodged the complaint with Opposite Parties no.1 & 2. From the documents available, it is proved that the disputed amount of Rs.5000/- has been debited twice from the account of the complainant. Further record transpires that the complainant raised her complaint with Opposite Party No.1 as well with Opposite Party No.2. It is gathered from the record that Opposite Party No.2 time and again asked the Opposite Party No.1 to look into their records and also requested them to reconcile the cash excess report for that particular date i.e. disputed date in question and transaction and asked them to arrange to afford the credit. Despite been the same the Opposite Party No.1 never reverted with any report. Also the Opposite Party No.1 failed to place on record the cash excess report for that particular date and transaction i.e. of the disputed date in question which raises a reasonable presumption in favour of the complainant that the Opposite Party No.1 despite having the report in their records failed to refund the disputed amount in question, which tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of Punjab National Bank i.e. opposite party no.1. Opposite Party No.1 is thus held liable to make the refund of the hard earned money of the complainant i.e. Rs.5000/-.

11.     In view of discussion above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct Opposite Party No.1-Punjab National Bank to refund the amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to complainant. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case no order as to costs. The compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission.